"Being an activist is the rent we pay for being on the planet." Alice Walker

A great deal has been written and said about the filibuster deal. There are declarations of victory and defeat on both sides of the political aisle. I'm not happy that some of Bush's nominees will have lifetime appointments on the bench. But I'd rather preserve the right to filibuster on Supreme Court nominees than lose that right and find all of Bush's nominees sent through. And while there's no guarantee that Frist's filibuster "rule change that's not a rule change" would have gone through, it was a strong possibility.

Some folks are claiming that the Dems can't filibuster based on ideology since they've let these extremist judges through and the deal they made was to filibuster only in extraordinary circumstances. I think it's reasonable to say that an appointment of an extremist to the Supreme Court is an extraordinary circumstance. I'd also argue that the Republican's elimination of all other means of blocking a nomination, combined with the President's choice to accept the "consent" of the Senate but not it's "advice", if resulting in nominees that are entirely extreme (no moderates) might qualify as extraordinary.

We'll see. For now, I'll accept that compromise is necessary if we are ever to overcome the partisan divide in this country. And I'll embrace the fact that the real extremists on the right were sent a message that they don't control the Republican party, that they weren't elected to office and don't dictate what our representatives will do. That's the real value of this compromise.

In an effort to avoid a showdown over the filibuster, seen by many to be a Constitutional crisis, twelve Senators are working hard to strike a deal. Six Republicans and six Democrats are struggling to find a compromise - and compromise is the heart of our legislative system. Two more Senators are on the edges of theh group, flirting with participation in a compromise that will avert what seems like an inevitable showdown.

The critical ingredient for success here is trust - a rare commodity between Republicans and Democrats in today's highly charged environment. But the country needs more than one Senator to reach across the aisle, to broker an agreement, to take the first steps.

Take a moment to email these Senators, Republican and Democrat alike, and tell them to forge ahead, to take the leap, to find a third way. The party leaders, Frist and Reid, can't budge. They've staked out extreme positions and any suggested compromise (especially by Frist) is met with threats of retaliation by special interest groups.

Here's an example of just such a threat from Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council (the group that put on "Justice Sunday").

"Those Republican senators who would undermine the leadership of Senator Frist would run a political risk in doing so."

Many won't take the risk. These may. So take a moment to contact these Senators and tell them we're counting on them to save the day, to wrest control of the Senate from the hands of the special interest groups. And tell the Dems not to give away the store.

The Senate passed the bankruptcy bill, 75-25. In other words, 75% of all Senators sided with business over the consumer. Democrats and Republicans alike should be upset (and will be). My favorite detail is the last minute lifting of a rule that prevented investment banks from participating in the bankruptcy reorganization of companies that they underwrote. The SEC said lifting the ban was a bad idea, but hey, the businesses wanted to ease bankruptcy restrictions on them so they got it. But don't worry, other restrictions still apply. Like if you find yourself in dire straights due to a medical crisis that racked up the bills, you can still lose your house. The details are laid out in this Bloomberg article and this Washington Post article.

Despite the vote, the battle isn't yet lost. The bill now moves to the House so it's time to shift our attention to our Representatives. But as we do, let's reserve time to let the Democratic Senators who voted to pass this bill know that they abandoned us on this vote and we won't forget it. I don't have a list yet, but when I do, I'll post it.

CORRECTION: The bill passed 74-25. Hillary didn't vote.

UPDATE: eRobin at fact-esque has the list of Dems who jumped the fence on this one. She's also get a smart analysis of the problem and a proposed course of action for despairing progressives. Tas at Loaded Mouth builds on eRobin's suggestions with his own analysis of the Dems and what's needed to make them truly representative.

Biden is getting tarred and feathered on the left for his vote for cloture on the bankruptcy bill and the expectation that he'll vote to pass the bill. I'm torn. Biden represents Delaware which is THE state for friendly corporate laws. That's why so many companies, especially credit card companies, incorporate in Delaware. Hell, my company is a Delaware corp and it's not like I'm even on the east coast.

Biden's state's economy has a real reliance on income from companies doing business in it, even those like mine that simply incorporate there. I'm tiny and still send thousands to Delaware for the privilege of incorporating there so I get the benefit of their business-friendly state laws. So I think Biden has serious pressure as a Delaware Senator to support corporate interests here. Theoretically, it's in the best interest of his constituents to do so.

BUT. The bankruptcy bill is shameful and I don't know how Biden or any other Democrat (or any other politician that's ever met someone struggling financially through no fault of their own) can support it. So I'm torn. I'm not prepared to throw Biden to the wolves. But I can't forgive him. What I can do is call him and tell him that at the very least he should give us the symbolic vote against the bill (after all, there's no political cost to him to do that). You can join me and reprimand him and ask for a no vote at the same time by calling him at 202-224-5042.

Then get ready for the House. The bill will be in their hands soon. We'll likely lose this battle, but let's go down swinging and yelling, shall we?

UPDATE: Suburban Guerilla isn't torn on the question of Biden as bad guy (and frankly, neither are a number of a-list bloggers). She lays him out for the donations he's taken from MBNA, past efforts to pass a bankruptcy bill like this one, selling his house to an MBNA executive, and the fact that his son worked for MBNA after college and now receives a $100k annual retainer from them to advise them from his law firm on Internet and privacy issues. Her indictment is damning and I'm dismayed. I want Biden to be a good guy. But it ain't lookin' good.

The Senate passed a cloture vote on the bankruptcy bill, with no poison pill attached. That means no more substantive amendments, another 30 hours of debate, and then a vote. It's going to pass with the support of key Democrats, despite the fact that this bill is anti-consumer and entirely tilted in favor of credit card companies. An amendment to exempt our active duty troops failed. Another to give a break to those in financial crisis because of medical crises failed. Another amendment to protect the homes of the elderly failed. Well, at least in tandem with limiting bankruptcy protections Congress put some limits on predatory lending practices of credit card companies, didn't they? Well, no. That amendment failed too. Congress, did, however, ensure protection for some folks - the rich. Amendments to close loopholes used by the rich, asset protection funds, were defeated.

Plenty of Democrats voted for cloture. These are the Senators that may vote in favor of the bill. It's our job to let them know that it's a betrayal of Democratic principles, a sell-out of the consumer in favor of the corporation, a dismissal of their constituent and an embrace of their corporate donors.

For more information on the bankruptcy bill, visit the Special Bankruptcy Bill Edition at Talking Points Memo, this editorial in the NYT which calls the bill what it is - a gift to the credit card industry, and this op-ed piece in the NYT by Paul Krugman. For information on the cash donations by the credit card industry to Congress, check this Open Secrets page.

UPDATE: John Podesta posted a great analysis of this bill at Think Progress. Go read it.

In comments, eRobin asks when the vote is scheduled.
Reuters reports that " the Senate plans to vote Tuesday afternoon on whether to invoke cloture to end debate. Cloture requires 60 votes." Once the bill passes the Senate, it goes to the House which is prepared to take it up immediately. If it passes the House, it then goes to conference to work out differences between the Senate and House versions. It then gets scheduled for a final vote in both the Senate and House and if passed, gets sent to Bush for his approval or veto.

Well what do you know. The Pubs have decided not to give DeLay a pass if he's indicted. They're retracting their rule change that allowed an indicted House member to hold a leadership position.

Officially, they're saying that the change of heart is in response to the public's demand. But I'm not naive enough to believe that. The change of heart has nothing to do with the public demand and everything to do with the fact that the Dems were going to force the issue to ensure that each Republican House member had to go public with their support for the change.

But maybe I'm being too cynical. Let's test them. They're still committed to one rule change. Right now, if a complaint is brought to the ethics committee, they vote on whether or not to investigate it. If the vote is a tie, then they investigate. The Pubs want to change this so that a tie means there's no investigation. Since committee membership is evenly divided between Pubs and Dems, the change means that as long as the Pubs on the committee stay united, they can block any investigation they want to block. That's not a ringing endorsement for the committee or for the House commitment to ensure ethical government. It's not exactly a vote of confidence in their members. Let's make a lot of noise about this one, demand that they maintain the highest of standards, and see if they respond. I for one will not hold my breath. I'm just too cynical.

For full coverage of the tinkering with ethics rules and Tom DeLay, go to Daily DeLay. (Talk about a single issue blog!)

The Republican domestic agenda is a reform agenda. The want to reform Social Security, the tax code, tort law, the budget - to reduce spending, federal regulatory law, the design of the House and the design of the government itself.

Plenty has been said and much more will be said about Social Security reform. The Pubs want partial privatization, likely funded through huge new debt and possible increases in payroll taxes and reductions in benefits. The Dems see partial privatization as the first step towards total dissolution of Social Security and argue that increasing the deficit is risky at best. Bush has said that he wants legislation passed by the end of2005.

Tax reform is attractive on its face. Who hasn't struggled to understand their tax obligations or what deductions apply? But tax reform is a nice, bland label for making tax cuts for the wealthy permanent, for ending estate taxes and taxes on dividends, for ending personal deductions for state taxes and adding taxes for the value of medical benefits provided by employers. The tax code is often used as a tool for implementing social policy and we should expect that to continue, knowing that the Pubs' social policy is far from progressive. For example, the use of a VAT to reduce or eliminate federal income tax (an option raised by the Pubs) is regressive, disproportionately affecting lower income citizens.

The Pubs have long desired tort reform. Their corporate sponsors want out from under the threat of significant damage awards for negligent acts on their part. The insurance companies particularly want to limit those awards. Bush likes to imply that the health insurance crisis is largely a result of frivolous law suits and unreasonable damage awards, but the government number crunchers have shown that the impact is negligible. The reference to health insurance is a classic redirection of our attention from an issue we won't support - limiting our legal options - to one we would support - making health care more accessible. We can't let him frame this issue and we should look to John Edwards to speak out loudly on it. He has credibility. We should also find cases where large damage awards resulted in better consumer protection and put forth the average John Doe who used the courts to address severe wrongs.

Reforming the budget to restrain spending? Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Sorry, really. But not even conservatives believe this one. We should look for the issue of deficit reduction to be used as a PR tool, hauled out to support other initiatives but ignored when not convenient. The best proof of this that the numbers Bush is using to craft his new budget exclude the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the cost of privatizing social security. On top of that, he's using past projections of the total deficit instead of actual numbers, which let Bush claim that he reduced the debt when the debt he says he made go away was never incurred. (If I think that my total personal debt at the end of the year will be $500 and it ends up being $400, is it accurate for me to run around bragging that I cut my debt by $100? I didn't think so.) To add insult to injury, Bush's budget also assumes the largest one year jump in tax revenues ever to occur - a great example of faith-based reasoning. The bottom line is that Bush's budget and deficit reduction plans are simply fuzzy math, at best.

Regulatory reform is an area of high risk for citizens. It includes environmental protection, worker safety laws, media consolidation, government oversight of businesses, and a wide range of other areas. Look for reform that favors corporate America, packaged in language of economic growth and national security.

Reforming the design of the House is a nice way of saying that they want to rewrite the rules to ensure House Democrats have no voice, no sway, no opportunity to affect the legislation being proposed, considered, or passed. The most critical area here is Sen. Frist's threats to eliminate the Democrats' ability to use the filibuster to block the most extreme Republican proposals, specifically the approval of extreme conservative judges. On top of that, they also want to change the rules so that they can confer favor upon those colleagues who toe the line, punish those who don't, and keep the ethics committee off the back of DeLay and any other ethically sketchy members. The one upside here is that they may actually address the 9/11 Commission recommendations to form one committee to oversee Homeland Security instead of the fifty or so we have now.

Finally, the idea of reforming the government is interesting and vague. There's no discussion of they historical Republican efforts to reduce the size of government or reform it in favor of states' rights. Instead, there is talk of constitutional amendments, limiting the judiciary's ability to rule on the constitutionality of specific legislation, impeaching judges who make unpopular legal decisions (the activist judges spiel), repealing the 28th amendment (to allow foreign born citizens to run for president), and discussions on how to legally neuter the party that isn't in power.

All in all, the Pubs are raring to go and want to flex their majority muscle. The Dems need to coalesce as the opposition party and fight tooth and nail, choosing their battles wisely, framing the issues clearly, challenging the PR machine that presents unpopular legislation as a moral issue, and standing firm in the face of a majority party that seems drunk with power. We'll lose again and again. But we'll win some. And we need to have a long term vision, using every win and every loss to inform and educate the public - red and blue - on the real agenda and consequences of ceding the government to the extreme right.

I think it's been a long time since our politicians actually saw themselves as true representatives of the people. That's what they're supposed to be - our representatives. You would think the members of the House would be particularly aware of this since their title is actually "Representative".

But that's not the way it works. Instead of representing us, they represent their party. It doesn't matter if the majority of US citizens support a specific piece of legislation, that isn't enough to get it passed. Because if the support comes from a smattering of Republicans and a majority of Democrats, or even a coalition of centrists from both parties, then it won't come to a vote. Only those bills that are supported by a majority of Republicans will be voted on and become law. So says Republican Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert. (WaPo)

That's why there was no vote on the intelligence bill that implemented the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. If it had come to a vote, it would have passed. There were enough Democratic votes when combined with the supporting Republicans. Despite the fact that a majority of all the Representatives supported it, a majority of Republican Representatives did not, so Hastert didn't allow a vote.

This was a bill with significant bi-partisan support, but that didn't matter. This was a bill that was supported by the majority of the people, but that didn't matter. A majority of Representatives supported it, but that didn't matter. A majority of Republican Representatives did not support it, that mattered. So it was killed. It was killed despite the support of the President. Now that's commitment to principle. Too bad it's the wrong principle - party over people.

Remember this every time you hear about the Pubs desire to reach across the aisle, whenever you hear the spin that it's the Dems that are stopping the business of government (as will be said the next time they filibuster).

And understand what this means. Legislation written to appeal to the center, to the moderates in the House, won't succeed. It doesn't matter that most of America is purple, not red or blue. It doesn't matter that these moderates are the ones who can bring together a majority coalition, who can reduce the polarization of the House, who can craft the middle road position that most of us want. They can't succeed unless they tilt right, abandoning their moderation, abandoning their bi-partisanship, abandoning their commitments to the people who voted them into office.

Hastert has laid out the new rule for our Representatives - you represent the party, not the people. It's government for the party, by the party, of the party.

Senator Robert C. Byrd is 87. He's been in the Senate for 46 years and recently voted against the omnibus bill that combined all the spending bills in Congress. He described the appropriations process this way.

"We have seen within these last few years, especially, this excrescence of the body politic grow until now it has become malignant," Mr. Byrd said, calling it "a disgrace upon the escutcheon of the Senate."

I LOVE that he's using the vocabulary and idioms that he is. Unfortunately, most Americans will have no idea what he's saying. So here's a translation (and yes, I had to use a dictionary to be sure).

"Especially over the past few years, we've seen this Congressional wart grow until it's become malignant. It's a dishonor to the Senate."